ENB:13:12
[Next] .
[Previous] .
[Contents]
UNDERLYING CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION
The Co-chair’s draft on programme element I.2 agrees that causes of deforestation and forest degradation are complex and, citing a number of factors, that it: notes wider geographic and time scales; discusses requirements, contexts and benefits of NFAPs and NFPs; mentions plantations and non-timber forest products and services; refers to a diagnostic framework and joint management with involvement of stakeholders and local people; and calls for coordination with other conventions. It also recommends actions and requests that the Secretariat take account of other programme elements, government initiatives and the IPF-1 report.
The GLOBAL FOREST POLICY PROJECT stressed the need to acknowledge international and multilateral pressures leading to deforestation. IPF should develop concrete proposals and identify responsible parties. WWF noted the inherent danger in the statements that deforestation may not necessarily be harmful and that plantations may take pressures off natural forests; social repercussions to indigenous communities can result. The G-77/CHINA asked that interventions only clarify what was previously said. Causes of deforestation in all countries must be viewed from a historical perspective. He asked that the language reflect that the IPF “noted” rather than “agreed” on causes of deforestation.
The EU stated that the Panel’s list of suggestions could be more clearly reflected in the Co-chair’s report. Grazing pressures and forest fires should be recognized as causes of deforestation. CANADA noted the need to clearly distinguish between direct and underlying causes of deforestation. Poverty would be better linked to issues outside of forests. Deforestation may not be harmful in the context of land-use plans. AUSTRALIA stated that agricultural pressures and sustainable agriculture techniques should be addressed and that mechanisms for information sharing need to be better defined. BRAZIL noted that the list of causes of deforestation and forest degradation did not include all those raised by IPF. The international causes of deforestation should be recognized, particularly those related to trade, market forces and the under-valuation of non-wood products and forest services.
SWITZERLAND suggested that “ecosystem level” replace “eco-regional” in a statement on approaches to land use because “regional” carries several connotations in UN parlance. The Secretariat’s preparation for IPF-3 should take into account relevant activities undertaken by the FCCC, CBD and INCD. MEXICO called for clarification of references to the “diagnostic framework,” the collection of information on forest cover and data on forest modification. She said C&I has not been raised in reference to managing information and suggested deleting the phrase. NORWAY said that while the document states that many causes of deforestation are outside the forest sector, it does not mention the impact of the forest sector directly and should refer to timber extraction. He said that the reference to rational justifications for changes in forest structure is dangerous. He emphasized: the identification of gaps in knowledge with regard to qualitative aspects; the involvement of local people in decision-making; and stated that forest modification should be planned.
The US said that including the statement that major land areas under forest cover are sometimes outside the direct control of national governments gave the impression that this was an underlying cause of deforestation. The reference to the effect of consumption and production patterns is unclear and should better reflect the full range of views. She noted that a reference to joint management is not appropriate for all countries. She suggested a new paragraph identifying examples of policies and interventions that have contributed to deforestation as well as those that have supported SFM. GABON stated that the paragraph on relevant international agreements should begin by mentioning the Forest Principles. He said the conclusions were timid on the indirect causes of deforestation and should reflect ideas on foreign debt and inadequate resources for implementing SFM. He noted that the text is confined to capacity building and should be expanded to other methods of implementation. He said the conclusions should also note the need for new and additional resources for developing countries.
INDIA emphasized poverty and consumption in the paragraph on the causes of deforestation, and poverty alleviation in the paragraph calling for an assessment of forest strategies in non-forest sectors of the economy. He added a reference to “emerging participatory management systems” to the paragraph on improved international collaboration, and emphasized the cross-sectoral nature of SFM. MALAYSIA noted that, in order to be credible, IPF must propose specific actions in three areas: identifying underlying causes; addressing these causes; and identifying difficulties in implementing SFM. He highlighted poverty alleviation and energy consumption in reference to underlying causes.
CANADA noted the importance of utilizing language which recognizes sub-national governing structures such as provincial governments within a federal system. The Co-chair stated that a revised draft text will be circulated Friday incorporating the day’s comments.